Pat Brown - What about the Window

There is actually a video on the blog on the link below.........

Thursday, February 16, 2012





Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What about the Window?







After I posted my first blog of this series, we had quite a rousing discussion over the issues of lighting in Praia da Luz in 2007 and if an abductor would feel unnerved going in and out of a window at that location (I am speaking of using this window for purposes of child abduction, not a lesser crime).


#1 Because the lighting was not horrifically deficient and the window was not positioned in a location where it would be extremely unlikely for someone to observe an abductor moving in and out of a window (and, for that matter, quite high odds that someone could observe the crime even though Praia da Luz was not flooded with visitors at the time the McCanns were there), I do not believe an abductor would have targeted the apartment by way of the front window.

But suppose this abductor did decide he really wanted the child inside and he couldn't access the doors. Perhaps he was willing to take a chance going in the window at a time he observed the parents had left the children without any adult supervision.

Could he pull up the shutters, open the window, and climb into the apartment without causing any damage, being heard, or leaving evidence? The McCanns say they believe the window was locked (but not absolutely positive) and the shutters were down. If you are inside the house and you want to open the shutters, you must pull on a cord which raises them (pictured above). If you want to break in, you must push them up; they make a horrible noise and they don't stay up...they go up 4/5 of the way and then fall back down. In the video you can see retired British police officer, PM, giving it a go (this video is distorted due to an unfortunate sideways filming and when compressed for uploading, stretched the horizontal dimension; PM is tall and very fit as you will see in future photos ...sorry, PM!)

[youtube][/youtube]


So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

My next post will focus on who could have come in and out the doors.

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

February 18, 2012 12:49 PM



Pat Brown said...

If the window was not left open, one would have to bust the glass or use a tool to somehow break in. Doing so would leave damage and be very obvious.

February 18, 2012 12:53 PM

I've already read this... and I feel hollow. I really feel like I've been punched in the guts as I'd have bet huge amounts of money that those shutters wouldn't move more than an inch or two. To see them go up that far is, well, startling to me. I know it's possible that the mechanism has been damaged over the years, but I think that's highly unlikely. The winding mechanism on those shutters is something that I don't see how it can be damaged to make it any slacker, so I think the chances are high that they've always been that moveable.

To me, this makes me feel a bit sick. I can't see how the window could be opened from the outside still and I still think that the window is a red herring, but to be that wrong about something I believed so wholeheartedly is a bit of a shock to me.

To me, this makes me feel a bit sick. I can't see how the window could
be opened from the outside still and I still think that the window is a
red herring, but to be that wrong about something I believed so
wholeheartedly is a bit of a shock to me.

It still doesn't fit with the McCann's original story though:
"The shutters were jemmied"- well, it seems they needn't have been, so why was this story put about in the first place?

They would have to have been propped up to remain in the open position. The props would have left marks on the sills and there is no evidence that the sills were disturbed, so they can't have been propped open. Nor has anyone suggested that they were.

Even though the McCanns and friends weren't prepared to do a reconstruction, I think it would have been helpful to have done one with actors. I would have shown up places where there were gaps in the stories - like the above.

I was surprised they did go up, but they are noisy. Also, they are already up and inch or two on the video, when they are lifted, yet when they come down they sit on the window ledge. How would you get your fingers under to lift them?

I appreciate that the opening of the shutters doesn't fit in with the early press reports that circulated and I still think there were too many people independently coming up with the same story after being contacted by the McCanns... but that is just my opinion, there is no way of being CERTAIN that was said (jemmied/forced/broken) but I still think it's highly likely. IF the window wasn't locked and there was an accomplice, it would have been easy to hold those shutters open. I don't think it's likely that's what happened, but I'm just in shock at having seen something I believed so passionately being wiped out in a few seconds of video.

I know that the lack of physical evidence means it's almost certain that the window wasn't used for anything, all I'm saying is that if this has been proven wrong, is there anything else that I believe to be "absolutely true" that is also mistaken? That's what's making me feel a bit sick right now.

..although I think Kate said that the shutters were raised when she found Madeleine had gone and we've seen that the shutters don't stay up, so that bit still doesn't tally.

Didn't Team McCann drop the shutters/window issue when they admitted the patio doors were left open, though? I thought that initially the relatives reported that the shutters had been jemmied and the front door left wide open by the abductor, but when Mark Warners said there was no evidence of this they suddenly remembered that they had left the patio doors open so that Madeleine could exit if there was a fire. Although then they later said that she would never have gone out on her own. Oh dear, as Dr McCann said, confusion is good!

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3090p10-mccanns-in-australia?highlight=australia

In the video of the interview last year in Australia, the shutters are up and the window is open.
At about 8 min. into the video Kate states this.

I don't know how to transfer the video to this post. But it's on page 2 of the 'McCanns in australia' topic.

[youtube][/youtube]

i for one am glad pat showed us these shutter and how they work.But there was no abductor and no jemmied shutters, that was all a red herring, and the mccanns are liars.

tiny wrote:i for one am glad pat showed us these shutter and how they work.But there was no abductor and no jemmied shutters, that was all a red herring, and the mccanns are liars.

The real point is that they tried to lift the shutters after they raised the alarm. I think Diana Webster was with Gerry when he tried this.
I'm sure I've seen a photograph of the shutters when they are just about a two inches up and get stuck. This is also in the testimony of DW.

Besides, I think the windows only open from inside, so even if the shutters could be lifted, the windows needed to be opened. It's all rubbish.

This comment on Pat's blog sums it up....

Anonymous said...
if they fall back down then kate couldnt have seen them pushed right up on her discovery unless they were opened properly from the inside?

February 18, 2012 1:09 PM

tigger wrote:

tiny wrote:i for one am glad pat showed us these shutter and how they work.But there was no abductor and no jemmied shutters, that was all a red herring, and the mccanns are liars.

The real point is that they tried to lift the shutters after they raised the alarm. I think Diana Webster was with Gerry when he tried this.
I'm sure I've seen a photograph of the shutters when they are just about a two inches up and get stuck. This is also in the testimony of DW.

Besides, I think the windows only open from inside, so even if the shutters could be lifted, the windows needed to be opened. It's all rubbish.

Yes tigger, I have stated before, the shutters, whether they be made of wood, plastic or aluminium with a plastic protective coating cannot be raised to allow a person to enter through the window, the reel inside where the roller is pulled onto has an approx. diameter of 5 centimetres, the slats on the shutter are each approx. 5 centimetres long, if the window is 80 centimetres high, how is anybody going to stuff 20 slats into a restricted space that gets narrower and narrower for every slat that is pushed up but not pulled onto the reel, the alchove in the lintel just gets bunged up

Nina wrote:I have shutters at every window small to large and every glass door in my house. I have tried alone, 5 feet 1 and 69 years old to raise them from the outside. Impossible. I have tried with hubby, 5 feet 9 and 79 years old, together and only possible one on each side and the need to prop with bricks. For every inch we raised them they groaned, as we did, and they needed props.

The man on the picture is younger and stronger. I cannot see a video, just the still of him holding the raised shutter. So may I ask, did he let go and it stay up, or, did he let go and it crash down?

These shutters are security shutters. My house insurance clearly states that if I have not got shutters then the premium is raised, that is because they prevent break ins. So in a built up area like PdL any attempt at break in imo would be noisy and in need of more than one person or something to prop the window up.

Hi Nina.

The shutters could be pulled up about 3/4 of height but as PM took his hand away the shutters immediately fell back again.

PAT BROWN@ProfilerPatB

Profiling is always an ongoing examinations of evidence and possibilities; it isn´t about being for or against. #McCann

9:32 PM - 18 Feb 12via web

Nina wrote:

Gillyspot wrote:

Nina wrote:I have shutters at every window small to large and every glass door in my house. I have tried alone, 5 feet 1 and 69 years old to raise them from the outside. Impossible. I have tried with hubby, 5 feet 9 and 79 years old, together and only possible one on each side and the need to prop with bricks. For every inch we raised them they groaned, as we did, and they needed props.

The man on the picture is younger and stronger. I cannot see a video, just the still of him holding the raised shutter. So may I ask, did he let go and it stay up, or, did he let go and it crash down?

These shutters are security shutters. My house insurance clearly states that if I have not got shutters then the premium is raised, that is because they prevent break ins. So in a built up area like PdL any attempt at break in imo would be noisy and in need of more than one person or something to prop the window up.

Hi Nina.

The shutters could be pulled up about 3/4 of height but as PM took his hand away the shutters immediately fell back again.

Gillyspot, thankyou for replying to me. So Pat has shown that an entry from outside using the window shutters is an impossibility.

Not at all. The simplest tool known to man, a stick of wood would wedge the shutters up as long as anybody needed them wedged open. And if discarded later it wouldn't arouse the slightest suspicion and depending on how rough it was wouldn't hold fingerprints either.

The man in the video raised the shutters very, very easily. They aren't security shutters though but the light ones which are designed to keep the place cool and shaded. There is no locking device on them.

Invinoveritas wrote:

tigger wrote:

tiny wrote:i for one am glad pat showed us these shutter and how they work.But there was no abductor and no jemmied shutters, that was all a red herring, and the mccanns are liars.

The real point is that they tried to lift the shutters after they raised the alarm. I think Diana Webster was with Gerry when he tried this.
I'm sure I've seen a photograph of the shutters when they are just about a two inches up and get stuck. This is also in the testimony of DW.

Besides, I think the windows only open from inside, so even if the shutters could be lifted, the windows needed to be opened. It's all rubbish.

Yes tigger, I have stated before, the shutters, whether they be made of wood, plastic or aluminium with a plastic protective coating cannot be raised to allow a person to enter through the window, the reel inside where the roller is pulled onto has an approx. diameter of 5 centimetres, the slats on the shutter are each approx. 5 centimetres long, if the window is 80 centimetres high, how is anybody going to stuff 20 slats into a restricted space that gets narrower and narrower for every slat that is pushed up but not pulled onto the reel, the alchove in the lintel just gets bunged up

If you took a moment or two to look at the video Pat Brown has posted of Peter opening the shutters you would realise how daft you sound. He opened them with almost no effort at all from the outside. And a stick of wood would wedge them open for as long as you wanted them open.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeuMzyaCnnY

wgbrother wrote:

Invinoveritas wrote:

tigger wrote:

tiny wrote:i for one am glad pat showed us these shutter and how they work.But there was no abductor and no jemmied shutters, that was all a red herring, and the mccanns are liars.

The real point is that they tried to lift the shutters after they raised the alarm. I think Diana Webster was with Gerry when he tried this.
I'm sure I've seen a photograph of the shutters when they are just about a two inches up and get stuck. This is also in the testimony of DW.

Besides, I think the windows only open from inside, so even if the shutters could be lifted, the windows needed to be opened. It's all rubbish.

Yes tigger, I have stated before, the shutters, whether they be made of wood, plastic or aluminium with a plastic protective coating cannot be raised to allow a person to enter through the window, the reel inside where the roller is pulled onto has an approx. diameter of 5 centimetres, the slats on the shutter are each approx. 5 centimetres long, if the window is 80 centimetres high, how is anybody going to stuff 20 slats into a restricted space that gets narrower and narrower for every slat that is pushed up but not pulled onto the reel, the alchove in the lintel just gets bunged up

If you took a moment or two to look at the video Pat Brown has posted of Peter opening the shutters you would realise how daft you sound. He opened them with almost no effort at all from the outside. And a stick of wood would wedge them open for as long as you wanted them open.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeuMzyaCnnY

So if a "stick of wood" was wedged to hold the shutters up (in the unlikely event it did not cause any marks or scratches on the shutter or the windowsill), what would that achieve as the window was still closed & locked?

And a stick of wood would wedge them open for as long as you wanted them open.

But that would have left a mark on the sills - which weren't marked.

Gillyspot wrote:

wgbrother wrote:

Invinoveritas wrote:

tigger wrote:

tiny wrote:i for one am glad pat showed us these shutter and how they work.But there was no abductor and no jemmied shutters, that was all a red herring, and the mccanns are liars.

The real point is that they tried to lift the shutters after they raised the alarm. I think Diana Webster was with Gerry when he tried this.
I'm sure I've seen a photograph of the shutters when they are just about a two inches up and get stuck. This is also in the testimony of DW.

Besides, I think the windows only open from inside, so even if the shutters could be lifted, the windows needed to be opened. It's all rubbish.

Yes tigger, I have stated before, the shutters, whether they be made of wood, plastic or aluminium with a plastic protective coating cannot be raised to allow a person to enter through the window, the reel inside where the roller is pulled onto has an approx. diameter of 5 centimetres, the slats on the shutter are each approx. 5 centimetres long, if the window is 80 centimetres high, how is anybody going to stuff 20 slats into a restricted space that gets narrower and narrower for every slat that is pushed up but not pulled onto the reel, the alchove in the lintel just gets bunged up

If you took a moment or two to look at the video Pat Brown has posted of Peter opening the shutters you would realise how daft you sound. He opened them with almost no effort at all from the outside. And a stick of wood would wedge them open for as long as you wanted them open.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeuMzyaCnnY

So if a "stick of wood" was wedged to hold the shutters up (in the unlikely event it did not cause any marks or scratches on the shutter or the windowsill), what would that achieve as the window was still closed & locked?

There is actually no evidence at all that the window behind the shutter was locked closed. Gerry McCann says that he doesn't remember if it was locked or not.

But if there was a gap between the curtains it would allow someone from outside to look inside and see what the situation was there, maybe using a torch to see if the children were asleep.

Miraflores wrote:

And a stick of wood would wedge them open for as long as you wanted them open.

But that would have left a mark on the sills - which weren't marked.

Why would it leave a mark. What is the sill made of? Cotton candy?

Was the roller shutter in the video demonstration the shutter on the window of 5a and was it the same shutter that was there when Madeleine was allegedly abducted May 3 2007?

So the abductor came armed with a piece of wood. Of course it would have to be exactly the right length, he couldn't get his saw out and start cutting it there could he. Too long and it wouldn't fit the gap, too short and the blind go not be raised high enough. And where did this piece of wood go. Did he carry it away with him holding Madeleine out in front of him. If he threw it aside, then the PJ would have found it. Not forgetting of course it would have marked the blinds, and the sill.

T4two wrote:Was the roller shutter in the video demonstration the shutter on the window of 5a and was it the same shutter that was there when Madeleine was allegedly abducted May 3 2007?

Are you thinking that Pat Brown might have made a blunder and is profiling the present (which could be very different) and not the situation as it was in 2007 the same way she did with the lighting and the trees?

candyfloss wrote:So the abductor came armed with a piece of wood. Of course it would have to be exactly the right length, he couldn't get his saw out and start cutting it there could he. Too long and it wouldn't fit the gap, too short and the blind go not be raised high enough. And where did this piece of wood go. Did he carry it away with him holding Madeleine out in front of him. If he threw it aside, then the PJ would have found it. Not forgetting of course it would have marked the blinds, and the sill.

Wood doesn't mark metal or stone very easily. Sorry to burst that bubble.
And are you forgetting that the abductor is suspected of having been in the area before and would have had the opportunity to recce the place. The wood would not need to be a precise length. Six inches either way would make little difference. And yes he could have carried it away. That might go some way to accounting for his odd carrying position.

Nina wrote:

wgbrother wrote:

Nina wrote:

Gillyspot wrote:

Nina wrote:I have shutters at every window small to large and every glass door in my house. I have tried alone, 5 feet 1 and 69 years old to raise them from the outside. Impossible. I have tried with hubby, 5 feet 9 and 79 years old, together and only possible one on each side and the need to prop with bricks. For every inch we raised them they groaned, as we did, and they needed props.

The man on the picture is younger and stronger. I cannot see a video, just the still of him holding the raised shutter. So may I ask, did he let go and it stay up, or, did he let go and it crash down?

These shutters are security shutters. My house insurance clearly states that if I have not got shutters then the premium is raised, that is because they prevent break ins. So in a built up area like PdL any attempt at break in imo would be noisy and in need of more than one person or something to prop the window up.

Hi Nina.

The shutters could be pulled up about 3/4 of height but as PM took his hand away the shutters immediately fell back again.

Gillyspot, thankyou for replying to me. So Pat has shown that an entry from outside using the window shutters is an impossibility.

Not at all. The simplest tool known to man, a stick of wood would wedge the shutters up as long as anybody needed them wedged open. And if discarded later it wouldn't arouse the slightest suspicion and depending on how rough it was wouldn't hold fingerprints either.

The man in the video raised the shutters very, very easily. They aren't security shutters though but the light ones which are designed to keep the place cool and shaded. There is no locking device on them.

Two props actually, one on each edge. And how does he wedge it whilst holding up the weight of the shutters with both hands, with his teeth?

Why two props? One just off centre on the non-opening side would be plenty.